affiliate_lomadee_verify_auth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'), which is useful beyond the schema since no output schema exists. It implies a read-only, minimal network operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (though none expected) or handling details beyond the reason field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage timing, and return format/complement. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no filler, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete: it explains what the tool does, when to invoke it, what it returns, and how it relates to a diagnostic tool. An agent has all necessary information to select and call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete and there is nothing to document. The description's mention of 'configured credentials' adds context about how the tool operates without parameters. This aligns with the baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify the configured credentials for Lomadee are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It uses a specific verb ('Verify'), identifies the resource ('credentials for Lomadee'), and distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools by explicitly naming Lomadee.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also names the complementary tool 'affiliate_run_diagnostic' for a full health check, helping the agent choose between them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.